On Metagame and in-character "Suddendly I realize...!".

[Keltest]

It's clear you view this in a completely different manner, but no those are not applicable.

The correct analogy would be that the character purchased a shield, states that they would like to equip the shield and you then tell them that, their character wouldn't use a shield because that's not in their character. Or tries to use the shield to block an attack, but is told, that is metagaming because they are trying to raise their AC but that you feel they wouldn't be defensive and they should in fact be power attacking.

Or wasn't allowed to purchase a shield in the first place because that would be preparing for a combat that the metagame would tell them would likely be forthcoming due to it being an rpg that involves combat rules, including perhaps those for purchasing,equipping or otherwise using a shield.

See in my case, I'd expect that my player planned to purchase a shield the last time they were in the city for situations where they would want it. Now if said shopping trip was to occur between sessions I may actually rule that they have a shield if they took no actions that would have been impossible with it in the prior rounds.

How is it not applicable? In one situation theyre trying to use an item that they do not have. In the other, theyre trying to use knowledge they don't have. If you assume that they bought it when you (the DM) weren't looking, whats next? A ring of fire resistance the next time they get fireballed? Boots of Speed next time they need to run away? Where do you draw the line between "fair enough" and "Cheating"?

[Frozen_Feet]

It really doesn't require something nearly this rigid to get a group of people and put together a game they'll all enjoy.

Uh huh.

My definition of the players' part in RPGs was deciding what their characters are doing & how & why. If the player doesn't enjoy choosing the what, explain to me how they are or even should be playing a game. If the player doesn't enjoy thinking and choosing how and why, explain to me how they are or even should be roleplaying.

Also, find me an RPG where the what, how and why of a character are not important.

Trying to draft the game like a contract is just going to mean that a person's ability to be satisfied with the experience is limited by their ability to translate what they actually want into precise terms. But most people can't do that very well, if at all.

The inability of people to tell what they mean will limit their satisfaction in common, everyday speech. In a word-based medium, I don't need to draft my game like a contract for it to be an issue. Nevermind that, in light of current psychological and social theorems, all games are contracts. A contract doesn't need to be comparable to legal text in detail in order to be clear. Even if a lot of popular games do fit that criteria as well.

Instead you can see what people respond positively to and what they respond negatively to, and adjust the game to optimize that. That's the whole point about the 'enjoyment' criterion - rather than committing yourself and your friends to be miserable because it turns out you messed up when trying to precisely specify what you wanted 6 months ago, you recognize that the purpose of that exercise was to find the compromise game that everyone there could enjoy, and then just target that enjoyment directly.

The underlying assumption here is that there is a game everyone at the table could enjoy that will still count as an RPG.

[Frozen_Feet]

Theyre usually aware of when theyre metagaming.

I hope this sentence is satire, because otherwise it implies a person can metagame without knowing it.

That's simply not possible. Metagaming is using out-of-game information to make your in-game decisions. You can't metagame if you have no such information.

[NichG]

Uh huh.

My definition of the players' part in RPGs was deciding what their characters are doing & how & why. If the player doesn't enjoy choosing the what, explain to me how they are or even should be playing a game. If the player doesn't enjoy thinking and choosing how and why, explain to me how they are or even should be roleplaying.

Also, find me an RPG where the what, how and why of a character are not important.

What I'm saying is that whether they are 'playing a game' or 'roleplaying' or whatever from the point of view of formal definitions is irrelevant. If the game forgets that its an RPG for a scene or two but everyone is having fun then that's fine, even if everyone ostensibly gathered 'to play an RPG', because the underlying reason that they decided 'to play an RPG' was because thats something they thought they'd enjoy in a particular way they were seeking. If they still achieve that enjoyment but what causes it turns out to not have been an RPG by some formal definition, then so what?

The game exists for the sake of the players (which includes the DM) and not vice versa.

So if the what, how, and why of a character are important, that's because somehow it connects to the players being satisfied with the way things play out. If that satisfaction can be achieved via ways that break the formal definition but still scratch that particular itch, then that's fine. Yes these things can be important because they aim the experience in a certain direction, but they aren't sacrosanct. They're important because of how they influence a player's experience, not for their own sake.

The underlying assumption here is that there is a game everyone at the table could enjoy that will still count as an RPG.

I'm objecting to the assumption that 'counting as an RPG' is intrinsically valuable, because it excludes the possibility of optimizing the experience even further and finding a game that everyone will enjoy more at the cost of it not technically counting as an RPG from the point of view of some or other formal definition.

[draken50]

How is it not applicable? In one situation theyre trying to use an item that they do not have. In the other, theyre trying to use knowledge they don't have. If you assume that they bought it when you (the DM) weren't looking, whats next? A ring of fire resistance the next time they get fireballed? Boots of Speed next time they need to run away? Where do you draw the line between "fair enough" and "Cheating"?

Honestly Keltest... it's never come up. The shield thing did, and it occurred in a game where the character had just unlocked an ability called "shield charge." This ability was their character's first ability that not only used but required a shield. Was in town, was told all normal rarity items were available for purchase, and then had a fairly extended conversation with the party about what rarer items they would take the time to seek out, likely distracting him from that purpose. It really only came up becuase he hadn't yet learned that equipping a shield is a more complex action in the system we were using (Earthdawn 3.0)

As too, "Suddenly a ring of fire resistance appears." It's never happened once. I've got a fair memory for these things too. Again though, I feel that's due mutual trust between me and my players.

Additionally, let me ask you this. The player went and trained for a fair period of time in a shield ability under an instructor. An ability he would have to use in order to raise his circle(level, but acknowledged in game, like a rank.) And then DIDN'T BUY ONE.

So... would you tell the player he didn't have a shield to use, or perhaps you have stopped his character from leaving town first, because it wasn't good roleplaying?
After all... his character wouldn't have done that.

[Keltest]

I hope this sentence is satire, because otherwise it implies a person can metagame without knowing it.

That's simply not possible. Metagaming is using out-of-game information to make your in-game decisions. You can't metagame if you have no such information.

I have had people unconsciously metagame before without really realizing theyre doing it. Most commonly its when theyre trying recommend another course of action to another player who's character could not actually communicate with them. If I point out that "XXX's character cant hear you" they'll go "Oh, yeah, oops." and then proceed to talk to the other player anyway, because its a game after all.

Honestly Keltest... it's never come up. The shield thing did, and it occurred in a game where the character had just unlocked an ability called "shield charge." This ability was their character's first ability that not only used but required a shield. Was in town, was told all normal rarity items were available for purchase, and then had a fairly extended conversation with the party about what rarer items they would take the time to seek out, likely distracting him from that purpose. It really only came up becuase he hadn't yet learned that equipping a shield is a more complex action in the system we were using (Earthdawn 3.0)

As too, "Suddenly a ring of fire resistance appears." It's never happened once. I've got a fair memory for these things too. Again though, I feel that's due mutual trust between me and my players.

Additionally, let me ask you this. The player went and trained for a fair period of time in a shield ability under an instructor. An ability he would have to use in order to raise his circle(level, but acknowledged in game, like a rank.) And then DIDN'T BUY ONE.

So... would you tell the player he didn't have a shield to use, or perhaps you have stopped his character from leaving town first, because it wasn't good roleplaying?
After all... his character wouldn't have done that.

Youre changing the scenario on me. I made no mention of being fresh from a shopping trip in my scenario. If youre distracting them while shopping or it otherwise takes a while and you want to move on while you wait for them to look for every 10' pole they need, by all means, let them retroactively shop a bit. If theyre halfway through a dungeon and suddenly a shield would be useful, they cant just materialize one.

[Flickerdart]

I have had people unconsciously metagame before without really realizing theyre doing it. Most commonly its when theyre trying recommend another course of action to another player who's character could not actually communicate with them. If I point out that "XXX's character cant hear you" they'll go "Oh, yeah, oops." and then proceed to talk to the other player anyway, because its a game after all.

There's no reason players shouldn't be able to offer each other tactical advice out-of-character. Communicating in-game information that one character wouldn't know is a no-no, of course, but "come on, power attack him for more" or "remember that you picked up Lightning Bolt last level" are fine things to say.

[Keltest]

There's no reason players shouldn't be able to offer each other tactical advice out-of-character. Communicating in-game information that one character wouldn't know is a no-no, of course, but "come on, power attack him for more" or "remember that you picked up Lightning Bolt last level" are fine things to say.

Yeah, that's one type of metagaming I wont put much fight up over. At the end of the day, the players aren't veteran adventurers, and frankly theres a good chance that they don't even have all the relevant information available to them in any given scenario unless they think to ask for every tiny little detail. So if they don't have the split second reaction time and incredible intelligence of their characters, I wont hold it against them.

[Amphetryon]

Yeah, that's one type of metagaming I wont put much fight up over. At the end of the day, the players aren't veteran adventurers, and frankly theres a good chance that they don't even have all the relevant information available to them in any given scenario unless they think to ask for every tiny little detail. So if they don't have the split second reaction time and incredible intelligence of their characters, I wont hold it against them.

That sounds like a fairly adversarial approach to the GM/Player relationship, built - in part - on 'gotcha gaming.'

[Keltest]

That sounds like a fairly adversarial approach to the GM/Player relationship, built - in part - on 'gotcha gaming.'

Im only human. I cant possibly think of every tiny detail that would affect the decision making process. If I forget to tell the player something that prevents their plan from working, ill usually say "Oops, sorry, forgot to mention that" and let them do a different action on the assumption that their character's sensory organs are more reliable than my ability to describe a scene.

[draken50]

Youre changing the scenario on me. I made no mention of being fresh from a shopping trip in my scenario. If youre distracting them while shopping or it otherwise takes a while and you want to move on while you wait for them to look for every 10' pole they need, by all means, let them retroactively shop a bit. If theyre halfway through a dungeon and suddenly a shield would be useful, they cant just materialize one.

That's right, because my scenario was one that actually happened with REAL PLAYERS in a REAL GAME. As opposed to being designed to show what happens if you are "permissive" of a-hole players out to lie and cheat their way to success in your imaginary world. Behavior that has never happened at my table, will not happen at my table and is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to my games.

You are trying to argue that these things are the same. They are not.

I have said and will say that you can play however the heck you want.

However...

If you want to disagree with people who are seeing you as an adversarial and/or controlling GM, however, you need to understand that this is occurring because things you think are "exactly the same" are... in other peoples minds... are in fact not exactly the same. Additionally, and perhaps even more so, because the role that you seem to so firmly believe the GM has, as arbiter of player action, roleplaying, decision making in game is not agreed with by many other players and GMs.

[themaque]

If you want to disagree with people who are seeing you as an adversarial and/or controlling GM, however, you need to understand that this is occurring because things you think are "exactly the same" are... in other peoples minds... are in fact not exactly the same. Additionally, and perhaps even more so, because the role that you seem to so firmly believe the GM has, as arbiter of player action, roleplaying, decision making in game is not agreed with by many other players and GMs.

Fair to a point, but the GM IS the final judgment in player action, role playing, and decision making. It just depends from table to table and from game to game how deep that goes.

I've played with people who have expected you to bend over backwards for them, because they have a story background written where they are illegitimate son of Elminster, and inheritor of his power so wants to start the game with a rod of lordly might. Who come up with random stuff from their background to have an excuse for anything you can imagine. This is a role playing game, not a game of "I win". Now that's certainly an outlier example, but it IS a real life experience for me. In many if not most gaming groups that stuff just won't fly.

The GM's responsibility IS to ensure that everyone is having fun and the game is running smoothly. Sometimes that means telling a player NO. Many times it means telling them YES.

[draken50]

Fair to a point, but the GM IS the final judgment in player action, role playing, and decision making. It just depends from table to table and from game to game how deep that goes.

I've played with people who have expected you to bend over backwards for them, because they have a story background written where they are illegitimate son of Elminster, and inheritor of his power so wants to start the game with a rod of lordly might. Who come up with random stuff from their background to have an excuse for anything you can imagine. This is a role playing game, not a game of "I win". Now that's certainly an outlier example, but it IS a real life experience for me. In many if not most gaming groups that stuff just won't fly.

The GM's responsibility IS to ensure that everyone is having fun and the game is running smoothly. Sometimes that means telling a player NO. Many times it means telling them YES.

Which is a gain a difference in mindset. I personally as a GM only consider myself the arbiter of player action in the sense of determining the success or failure of said action, and the related consequences, also if I feel that arbitration of "Roleplaying" and "Decision Making" is in my players hands for their characters.

I agree that it is not a game of "I win", and that players do need to be told no, often in relation to character creation and in some cases related to behavior. For instance I will state frankly that I do not want PVP in my games and that I expect the players, and their characters to generally get along. I do understand that it can easily be perceived as the same thing, but I and I feel many others, consider it to be very separate situations, and I feel that the boundaries of what I have determined to be acceptable behavior for my players are far more clearly delineated for both their and my benefit.

I want to be clear here. While I'm saying there are people who will call these DMs controlling and antagonistic, in some cases myself included, this is with the full knowledge that some players would call my practices controlling and antagonistic.

I won't let you play Elminster's more powerful evil twin in a PVP game, and their are players who may scream "You're controlling and eliminating player agency and that's antagonistic" and I'll say "Yup... Good thing you aren't and won't ever be in my game huh?"

Because here's the thing.. I'm so controlling and antagonistic that if I don't trust you to be playing in the same spirit of the game as my other players and myself are... you aren't in my game... period.

But if you are in my game, you have my trust, and your character is completely within your control. Your choices from the grand to the mundane are yours and yours alone, and I don't say this just to the forum. This is what I tell my players.

That behavior is what I may have a hard time finding... but it is what I expect as player myself.

[Keltest]

Which is a gain a difference in mindset. I personally as a GM only consider myself the arbiter of player action in the sense of determining the success or failure of said action, and the related consequences, also if I feel that arbitration of "Roleplaying" and "Decision Making" is in my players hands for their characters.

I agree that it is not a game of "I win", and that players do need to be told no, often in relation to character creation and in some cases related to behavior. For instance I will state frankly that I do not want PVP in my games and that I expect the players, and their characters to generally get along. I do understand that it can easily be perceived as the same thing, but I and I feel many others, consider it to be very separate situations, and I feel that the boundaries of what I have determined to be acceptable behavior for my players are far more clearly delineated for both their and my benefit.

I want to be clear here. While I'm saying there are people who will call these DMs controlling and antagonistic, in some cases myself included, this is with the full knowledge that some players would call my practices controlling and antagonistic.

I won't let you play Elminster's more powerful evil twin in a PVP game, and their are players who may scream "You're controlling and eliminating player agency and that's antagonistic" and I'll say "Yup... Good thing you aren't and won't ever be in my game huh?"

Because here's the thing.. I'm so controlling and antagonistic that if I don't trust you to be playing in the same spirit of the game as my other players and myself are... you aren't in my game... period.

But if you are in my game, you have my trust, and your character is completely within your control. Your choices from the grand to the mundane are yours and yours alone, and I don't say this just to the forum. This is what I tell my players.

That behavior is what I may have a hard time finding... but it is what I expect as player myself.

So you don't think its controlling to tell players they flat out aren't allowed to PvP (a decision I agree with on principal, but that's beside the point) but you think it is controlling to disallow the materialization of items out of thin air?

[draken50]

So you don't think its controlling to tell players they flat out aren't allowed to PvP (a decision I agree with on principal, but that's beside the point) but you think it is controlling to disallow the materialization of items out of thin air?

Actually, the materialization was an example you brought up, and it is not something I have to disallow. If you wish to swing a sword you don't have you can plainly do that. I tell the player that they have no reason to believe the attempt will be successful as a result, but they can try it if they wish.

Your example of materialization of an item was to try to demonstrate that player knowledge used in game and materialization of useful items was the same thing... which I disagreed with stating plainly I felt they were different. You created the argument that the two were equal, I never did.

I stated that I do not tell a player that they cannot attempt an action. I never stated that there was a reasonable, or actual possibility of that action succeeding. Again... I arbitrate the consequences of PC actions, but never the actions themselves, and I consider it only fair to ensure that the player knows that success is unlikely or impossible before it is attempted.

For instance a player attempting to jump a gorge that is 50' across thinking it was 5'. I won't tell them the character doesn't jump. I will ensure they understand the situation, make sure I understand the intent of their action and then arbitrate the consequences knowing that I as the GM and they as the player clearly understand the situation.

[Keltest]

Actually, the materialization was an example you brought up, and it is not something I have to disallow. If you wish to swing a sword you don't have you can plainly do that. I tell the player that they have no reason to believe the attempt will be successful as a result, but they can try it if they wish.

Your example of materialization of an item was to try to demonstrate that player knowledge used in game and materialization of useful items was the same thing... which I disagreed with stating plainly I felt they were different. You created the argument that the two were equal, I never did.

I stated that I do not tell a player that they cannot attempt an action. I never stated that there was a reasonable, or actual possibility of that action succeeding. Again... I arbitrate the consequences of PC actions, but never the actions themselves, and I consider it only fair to ensure that the player knows that success is unlikely or impossible before it is attempted.

For instance a player attempting to jump a gorge that is 50' across thinking it was 5'. I won't tell them the character doesn't jump. I will ensure they understand the situation, make sure I understand the intent of their action and then arbitrate the consequences knowing that I as the GM and they as the player clearly understand the situation.

Youre dancing around the argument here. In your "swinging a sword they don't have" scenario, the result is the same whether you tell them "You are aware swinging a sword you don't have wont work, right?" or "You don't have a sword, do something different." If the player continues to swign around empty air like a longsword, it may lead to a conversation about whether or not they actually want to play the game, but no matter what you are going to tell the player that no sword gets swung.

Time and again your examples are jumping not to player cheating, but miscommunication between the player and the GM. That is not remotely the same thing.

[draken50]

Youre dancing around the argument here. In your "swinging a sword they don't have" scenario, the result is the same whether you tell them "You are aware swinging a sword you don't have wont work, right?" or "You don't have a sword, do something different." If the player continues to swign around empty air like a longsword, it may lead to a conversation about whether or not they actually want to play the game, but no matter what you are going to tell the player that no sword gets swung.

You are missing the key difference.

I tell the Player that they don't have a sword to swing with... but they can still attempt that action, and then they may go along with it for humor or roleplaying or whatever and that their character attempts to draw and swing their blade with a mighty strike... that unfortunately is missing the pointy metal bit they are accustomed to.

You tell the player. "You can't do that. It's not what your character would do."

See our example is trolls and fire. You say "You don't know to use fire, you can't do that."

I let them do what they want.

Now said trolls might not be weak to fire, or might in fact be really weak to fire, but really good at tackling people while dying, or regularly consume gunpowder and nails knowing that the damage they'd take for consuming such things will heal quickly, and the pain is worth destroying the enemies of their clan. Or they might just be trolls.

But I let the player do what they want. I don't tell them they can't do things because I don't think they should.

[Keltest]

You are missing the key difference.

I tell the Player that they don't have a sword to swing with... but they can still attempt that action, and then they may go along with it for humor or roleplaying or whatever and that their character attempts to draw and swing their blade with a mighty strike... that unfortunately is missing the pointy metal bit they are accustomed to.

You tell the player. "You can't do that. It's not what your character would do."

See our example is trolls and fire. You say "You don't know to use fire, you can't do that."

I let them do what they want.

Now said trolls might not be weak to fire, or might in fact be really weak to fire, but really good at tackling people while dying, or regularly consume gunpowder and nails knowing that the damage they'd take for consuming such things will heal quickly, and the pain is worth destroying the enemies of their clan. Or they might just be trolls.

But I let the player do what they want. I don't tell them they can't do things because I don't think they should.

"Should" does not play into it. If they don't have a sword, they cant swing a sword no matter how much they or their character want to. Period. Its not about what I personally want them to do, its about obeying the understood restrictions of the game.

[draken50]

"Should" does not play into it. If they don't have a sword, they cant swing a sword no matter how much they or their character want to. Period. Its not about what I personally want them to do, its about obeying the understood restrictions of the game.

I'm sorry, I missed the rule where the game limitation is "Player cannot attack a troll with fire."

Where's that rule? I don't think that's a rule... is it? Is it really? Is that in the game? No?... Oh.. you have to attack a troll with fire or acid to kill it? Hmm... must not be a rule then...

Oh that's right.. You can't attack a troll with fire or acid in your game until YOU say it's okay... that's right. So no it's not an understood restriction of everyone's game... Yours... sure.. it's a houserule. But don't try to claim that it's THE GAME, as THE GAME is not your game, it's not my game. It's what was written in the book.

In my game, you can attack a troll with fire whenever there is a troll and either a source of, or an ability to create fire.

Heck you can even create the troll and create the fire, just to attack the troll with fire.

[Keltest]

I'm sorry, I missed the rule where the game limitation is "Player cannot attack a troll with fire."

Where's that rule? I don't think that's a rule... is it? Is it really? Is that in the game? No?... Oh.. you have to attack a troll with fire or acid to kill it? Hmm... must not be a rule then...

Oh that's right.. You can't attack a troll with fire or acid in your game until YOU say it's okay... that's right. So no it's not an understood restriction of everyone's game... Yours... sure.. it's a houserule. But don't try to claim that it's THE GAME, as THE GAME is not your game, it's not my game. It's what was written in the book.

In my game, you can attack a troll with fire whenever there is a troll and either a source of, or an ability to create fire.

Heck you can even create the troll and create the fire, just to attack the troll with fire.

Rule 0 says the GM is the ultimate authority on everything. But anyway, I am not saying "You cannot attack the troll with fire." I am saying "Your character has no reason to go for fire, so explain to me why he does."

[Red Fel]

Rule 0 says the GM is the ultimate authority on everything. But anyway, I am not saying "You cannot attack the troll with fire." I am saying "Your character has no reason to go for fire, so explain to me why he does."

"Because it's there" isn't a reason? Seriously, does weaponized fire even need a reason? It's weaponized fire. The ultimate problem-solver.

I mean, Dorothy didn't know that the Wicked Witch of the East had a rather severe allergy to H₂O, but she still went for the water. It's called a happy accident.

Now, if the player happened to be holding a weapon at the time, and hadn't used it yet, and hadn't encountered a troll before, I might think it fair to ask the player, "Why did your PC just drop his perfectly functional weapon and go for that torch?" If, on the other hand, the player had encountered trolls before, or had tried the weapon and it had done bubkes, I would have understood the player's choice. I wouldn't have asked the question, because the answer would be obvious: Because the weapon is not working, and I need to try something new.

But in a situation where there is a torch on hand, and the PC in question either doesn't have or hasn't readied his weapon? I wouldn't be averse to calling it a happy accident. Big scary thing. Wave fire in its face. "Back, beast! Back, I say!" Eh, it works. Let it ride.

[Keltest]

"Because it's there" isn't a reason? Seriously, does weaponized fire even need a reason? It's weaponized fire. The ultimate problem-solver.

I mean, Dorothy didn't know that the Wicked Witch of the East had a rather severe allergy to H₂O, but she still went for the water. It's called a happy accident.

Now, if the player happened to be holding a weapon at the time, and hadn't used it yet, and hadn't encountered a troll before, I might think it fair to ask the player, "Why did your PC just drop his perfectly functional weapon and go for that torch?" If, on the other hand, the player had encountered trolls before, or had tried the weapon and it had done bubkes, I would have understood the player's choice. I wouldn't have asked the question, because the answer would be obvious: Because the weapon is not working, and I need to try something new.

But in a situation where there is a torch on hand, and the PC in question either doesn't have or hasn't readied his weapon? I wouldn't be averse to calling it a happy accident. Big scary thing. Wave fire in its face. "Back, beast! Back, I say!" Eh, it works. Let it ride.

My issue is mostly with the "PC dropping his sword to go for a torch" scenario. Or even just randomly deciding to burn the bodies when they have never done something like that in the past and have no idea that you need to do that for trolls. Heck, id even let them get away with it if they noticed that "Hey, the monster keeps coming back, no matter how finely diced it gets!" Its a reasonable way to at least impede it, if nothing else. But if I cant figure out why they're breaking their patterns of behavior now, im going to ask them to explain themselves.

[Agincourt]

I'm surprised by the resistance Keltest is getting to what I had thought was a non-controversial proposition: players and character do not have identical sets of knowledge. Maybe I've just been lucky in my gaming groups, but when a DM tells us that do not know a piece of information, we take it with the same grace as if the he told us that we don't know how to cast a particular spell.

[NichG]

The issue doesn't seem to be so much with that. Players are of course capable of roleplaying that difference in knowledge if they want to. The controversial issue is whether or not the DM should arbitrate the specific nature and consequences of that difference in knowledge.

Once the DM is asked to enforce, the big problem is that the character doesn't actually have thoughts, so its impossible to really know if the character's reasoning process used information that they don't have access to. So what can happen that the DM tries to argue that the player did use OOC information and the player tries to argue that it is plausible to have taken the actions he did even without that information. What tends to follow is a sort of cowboys and indians dynamic of 'I shot you!' 'nope, I dodged!'. You also get annoying things like meta-antigaming: "Have I received enough hints for my character to know that I should try fire yet, or do I just know that the trolls regenerate? I'd better try every single energy type before fire first so I can't be accused of metagaming". Or meta-metagaming: "How can I put my character into a situation where they will learn the thing I already know?"

Since there's the alternative of making a game where there really are just things the players don't know and have to figure out, that has the clear advantages of just sidestepping the issue.

[Pex]

The problem can be solved with a skill check set at DC not so high why are you pretending you're allowing the roll, in 5E. As I mentioned don't only make it a Knowledge roll so that non-spellcaster characters get to know stuff. A troll could be Knowledge Arcana and/or Knowledge Nature, but a dwarf or half-orc may use Survival to reflect racial familiarity.

3E/Pathfinder specifically do it by the different Knowledge Skills with Pathfinder allowing a somewhat easier time of it in its skill system. Pathfinder sets the DC at 15 + CR. If you make the DC you as a player may ask the DM one question about the monster. Every 5 over the DC you get on the check is another question. If the player really does know all about the monster out of character you can use this metric to determine what the character knows in character the player may use.

[Thrudd]

I feel it is just preferable not to put the players in that situation too often. No matter how good and cooperative the player is, it is still a bit awkward when you are asking them to pretend they don't know things. It is much easier when they really don't know things, and what they do know, their character can know as well.

Knowledge skills work better as ways to give hints and new info, rather than as a way to instruct the player how they should roleplay (by telling them the character can't act on certain info the player already has).

If your players know how trolls work, then just let that be common knowledge in the setting, or don't use trolls (at least not identifiable ones). Sidestep the whole issue, that way.

[SiuiS]

I feel it is just preferable not to put the players in that situation too often. No matter how good and cooperative the player is, it is still a bit awkward when you are asking them to pretend they don't know things. It is much easier when they really don't know things, and what they do know, their character can know as well.

this is only true in the antagonistic setup that D&D uses and which people who grew up on D&D assume applies to all games.

In some games, the very fact that your character doesn't know what's going on is half the fun. Allowing for those consequences of imperfect knowledge is fun! Just don't make all things binary, and make some losses more fun and interesting than winning.

[goto124]

There's also the option of sidestepping the issue entirely, which is designing the game such that any knowledge the players can get their hands on will either 1) not apply to your homebrew setting or 2) not matter much anyway.

Could someone give examples where a player's knowledge (which the character doesn't possess) ruins the enjoyment of the other players? And in those examples, isn't it less of metagaming and more of the player being a jerk?

Also, related to the trolls and fire situation we've been talking about: why is it so important that the PCs don't use the players' tactical/game/world knowledge? Such knowledge tends to be embedded deep into experienced players' minds, and if I'm told 'how did you know to use fire' kind of questions constantly just because I know the system in and out, I'll be flipping the table. For the trolls and fire, the players will have to waste time/turns/HP from taking damage just pretending to not know what the trolls are vulnerable to. Really...?

[SiuiS]

Perspective.

You're looking at a game where the goal is to numerically triumph repeatedly over challenges that present mathematical difficulties using applications of a combination of descriptor tag and mathematics (such as "fire, 1d6/level (currently 8d6), prevents enemy from recovering this amount").

From the perspective of dramatic narration, where the story of how these humans interface with each other and adapt to a life of hardship on the road, meeting challenges with steel and wits and having to explore when to use force and what kind of force to use...

Simply defaulting to "i burn him and he can't recover. Challenge over." Is bypassing the fun to try and get to some other, different fun.


I have a player like this right now actually. One party mate is critically injured, and they're stuck in a corrugated steel shed in a scrapyard as their FOB in a zombie apocalypse scenario. I've told them all point blank that the interpersonal drama of friction and tempers in a tight space is the point of this game, not rolling dice to kill zombies, and if that wasn't fun then this wasn't the game for them.

This one player still continues to insist on getting into fights, rushing past deacriptions, conversations, narrative drama, so he can roll dice against zombies. That's just how he sees role playing games. It's not bad – I certainly have my own interest in that sort of thing – but damn if it isn't actively killing everyone else's enjoyment.

[Frozen_Feet]

I have had people unconsciously metagame before without really realizing theyre doing it. Most commonly its when theyre trying recommend another course of action to another player who's character could not actually communicate with them. If I point out that "XXX's character cant hear you" they'll go "Oh, yeah, oops." and then proceed to talk to the other player anyway, because its a game after all.

Point taken.

---

What I'm saying is that whether they are 'playing a game' or 'roleplaying' or whatever from the point of view of formal definitions is irrelevant.

Ever heard a saying about a finger pointing at the moon?

The definition refers to actual actions taken by the players. You might as well be arguing actions are irrelevant, as long as they're enjoyable.

You also missed my point. You were arguing I'm being too strict. Show me an RPG that does not pass my definition and then do that again.

If they still achieve that enjoyment but what causes it turns out to not have been an RPG by some formal definition, then so what?

Because if what they're actually doing is karate instead of RPGs, they're on the wrong subforum and might not find any of the advice particularly helpful.

Finger. Moon.

I'm objecting to the assumption that 'counting as an RPG' is intrinsically valuable, because it excludes the possibility of optimizing the experience even further and finding a game that everyone will enjoy more at the cost of it not technically counting as an RPG from the point of view of some or other formal definition.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. Let me correct my mistake and restate the argument with extraneous words removed:

The underlying assumption here is that there is something everyone at the table could enjoy.

You are completely correct in that a game exists for the sake of the players. But the players function as a group within context of the rules, and what's beneficial to a group is occasionally at odds what's beneficial to an invidual. (As a sidenote, this has nothing whatsoever to do with RPGs being particularly non-competitive. Purely competitive games and sports have their own restrictions on gathering and using metagame resources in order to maintain fair play.) And we know that punishing the invidual can make a group function better, even if the act of punishment only incurs costs to the punisher. There will be times when following the rules is not enjoyable to the player and enforcing the rules is not enjoyable to the GM, but when the GM's failure to enforce the rules would only serve to undermine group cohesion and lead to net decrease in group enjoyment.